Are the DUI laws a joke? (1 Viewer)

[Kool-Aid Larry]

It's interesting how much crap you're giving KCitons but you turn around and can be so flippant about an activity that is just as dangerous. No offense, but that's pretty ####### stupid.

I don't know what you mean by flippant -- I don't text and drive.

it's pretty ####### stupid, self involved, obnoxious behavior just like drunk driving.

are you one of those drunk drivers outraged at what the rest of the world is doing?

I think what I said is pretty much true, and we will continue to see progress towards curbing this behavior through harsher penalties as more people get killed by it -- same as drunk driving.

years ago, before all these campaigns to wake you guys up, I doubt there was much of a penalty for dui --- like just round otis up every day and have him sleep it off in the tank, or maybe follow the white guys home, or whatever.

 

[Kool-Aid Larry]

http://gcn.com/articles/2010/09/29/sl-texting-bans-increase-crashes.aspx?m=1

I'm on a tablet and for some reason can't paste a link after the quoted text, only before it.

All the DUI laws quoted are far worse than some things that are equally as dangerous like texting while driving; a whopping $114 dollar fine in the state of Washington. It's a joke they are so punitive comparatively.

There's pretty good evidence that laws prohibiting texting while driving increase the rate of accidents.

I know of no such evidence regarding laws prohibiting drinking and driving.

What evidence are you talking about?

So make the penalties more severe, like with DUI. Make someone pay 10k in fines/lawyer fees and attend TA meetings for a year and see if that has an effect. I bet more people would drive drunk if the penalty was a $100 ticket as with texting.

yeah, that's probably 100% true, but it's taken decades of crusading to get dui penalties to where they are today --- texting and outlawing cell usage is in it's infancy.

what they need is like a fathers against texting campaign, or something.

But wait, you already said that you never drove after drinking, because of common sense. This just reiterates the title of this thread. While the DUI laws on the surface may seem severe, the penalties that are actually handed down (especially for 2nd, 3rd or 4th offenders) carries no real threat and does little to help the true problem. Why does it take such a long time if the answer to the problem is common sense?

At least I can admit that I've made mistakes in my life.

I'm pretty sure that's actually the opposite of what I said, but I'm not the reading police.

 

[Slapdash]

This thread needs less kool-aid

 

[KCitons]

you are like one of these ####### smokers who want a medal when they quit smoking, then spend the rest of their lif #####ing about how much secondhand smoke stinks.

No, not really. You are the one that brought this to a personal level. Again, read the original post. I don't think anyone disagrees that my father in law is a threat to hurt someone.

I can't change what you do. So why should I try?

But, since you asked me a question, let me ask you. Do you drink and drive? What do you think the penalty should be after the first offense? Second? Third? What if your BA is double the limit and it's obvious you didn't just have a beer with dinner?

no

Let me help you.

And you call me an idiot.

 

[Christo]

are you one of those drunk drivers outraged at what the rest of the world is doing?

I don't even own a car. But keep bringing the dumb. Oh, no offense intended.

 

[Zow]

A large portion of my criminal defense practice the past 5 years has been defending DUI cases in AZ - one of the strictest states for DUI. In AZ if you get a DUI you will spend at least one day in jail, incur fines and fees of at least 5,000 and suffer a temporary license suspension after which you can only get your license back if you install the ignition interlock on your vehicle for a year. Get a DUI with a BAC >.15 and you're looking at 30-60 days. Get a second DUI and you face a minimum of 30 days with up to 3,75 years prison in play. A third, or a DUI with kids in the car, and you go to prison for a couple years. A fourth and above and you're flirting with decades. The AG has policies in place making incredibly difficult to get a DUI dismissed, even with good grounds. Statutes have strictly and rigidly laid out punishments so plea bargaining is equally difficult.

That said, I'd offer the following:

1. DUI is the ONLY crime I've scene span equally across all societal lines - economic, racial, cultural, age, etc. I've seen incredibly good people commit DUI. Those people are then generally punished more harshly that people who steal or commit assaults by domestic violence.

2. The general sense in the legal community is that first time offenses, at least here, are far too harsh. The reason for this is two-fold: 1) the majority of people DON'T know the punishment for DUI they face when they decide to get behind the wheel; and 2) an impaired person simply cannot, for obvious reasons, really know his actual level of impairment and then it is a game of luck between getting 1 or 30 days if the person had a decent amount. I cannot tell you how hard it is to tell someone like a single mother working two jobs who let loose one night and has never been in trouble that the law says she's gotta do 30 days straight in jail. DUIs cause job loss in conjunction with breaking the bank. Put all this into the shadow of testing methods which are not perfect, and the laws do appear draconian as dparker mentioned above.

3. Point 2 aside, the general sense in the legal community is that the punishments for multiple DUI convictions is not too harsh at all. After all, the person would be well aware of the risks after the first DUI. There isn't much sympathy for the multiple offender.

4. There are no good solutions to this problem. On one hand, we have to weigh to significant potential for harm of this crime and the idea of making penalties harsh enough that even impaired people will be deterred from the action. On the other, the number of otherwise good people who commit the crime seems to suggest that they didn't know the penalties in the first place and to make all these people sit in jail, pay up their life savings, and possibly lose their job seems very harsh. What's funny is that in doing these cases you can see the potential for bias the balancing scale for DUI punishment poses - someone gets a DUI on a particular Defendant's street = that person should rot in jail forever. However, if the Defendant or, moreso, the Defendant's child gets a DUI = the system is railroading them and its unfair and their life is ruined over one simple mistake.

5. While I am regrettably pessimistic about any sort of improvement, two potential aids to the problem that I think would help are to educate people prior to getting a DUI and offer more accommodating methods of public transportation. Naturally though the downside to this is that both of these would be an expensive cost to a community, and it seems unfair to tax the people who don't drink and drive to try to help stop those who do.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

1) the majority of people DON'T know the punishment for DUI they face when they decide to get behind the wheel;

I would say most people dont know the punishment statutes for a majority of infractions. Every single one of them certainly KNOWS that dui is illegal though.

 

[Christo]

2. The general sense in the legal community is that first time offenses, at least here, are far too harsh.

3. Point 2 aside, the general sense in the legal community is that the punishments for multiple DUI convictions is not too harsh at all.

4. There are no good solutions to this problem.

Here's a thought; make the first offense less harsh then throw the book at them on the second.

 

[Christo]

1) the majority of people DON'T know the punishment for DUI they face when they decide to get behind the wheel;

I would say most people dont know the punishment statutes for a majority of infractions. Every single one of them certainly KNOWS its illegal though.

They know it becomes illegal at some point.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

2. The general sense in the legal community is that first time offenses, at least here, are far too harsh.

3. Point 2 aside, the general sense in the legal community is that the punishments for multiple DUI convictions is not too harsh at all.

4. There are no good solutions to this problem.

Here's a thought; make the first offense less harsh then throw the book at them on the second.

6/5/2013 @ 3:57pm

Christo makes total sense, mark it down.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

1) the majority of people DON'T know the punishment for DUI they face when they decide to get behind the wheel;

I would say most people dont know the punishment statutes for a majority of infractions. Every single one of them certainly KNOWS its illegal though.

They know it becomes illegal at some point.

Yep, they know it. They may not be a human walking breathalyzer, however.

 

[Christo]

2. The general sense in the legal community is that first time offenses, at least here, are far too harsh.

3. Point 2 aside, the general sense in the legal community is that the punishments for multiple DUI convictions is not too harsh at all.

4. There are no good solutions to this problem.

Here's a thought; make the first offense less harsh then throw the book at them on the second.

6/5/2013 @ 3:57pm

I finally recognized Christo's brilliance, mark it down.

FYP

 

[Zow]

1) the majority of people DON'T know the punishment for DUI they face when they decide to get behind the wheel;

I would say most people dont know the punishment statutes for a majority of infractions. They certainly KNOW its illegal though.

Of course they know it's illegal. But knowing just that is not enough. The idea of deterrence is premised on the assumption that the potential offender is a rational actor. Deterrence works then if the punishment for the crime (jail, fine, loss of license) multiplied by the risk of getting caught (cops on the road, checkpoints, distance from home, etc.) outweighs or is greater than the benefits (cost of a cab, not leaving a car, having car in AM, etc.). One cannot do this cost-benefit analysis based solely on "it's illegal." She'd need to know more - and I think the knowledge that jail is mandatory is the minimum needed here. But unfortunately that isn't often the case.

Of course though this all assumes a rational actor willing to consider her options (if not morally persuaded by the thought that DUI is "bad"). Expecting a then impaired person to go through this analysis is almost faulty on its face.

 

[Zow]

2. The general sense in the legal community is that first time offenses, at least here, are far too harsh. 3. Point 2 aside, the general sense in the legal community is that the punishments for multiple DUI convictions is not too harsh at all. 4. There are no good solutions to this problem.

Here's a thought; make the first offense less harsh then throw the book at them on the second.

That's pretty much the consensus amongst the DUI bar here. ETA: I guess I should have been more specific as the problem I was initially referencing was that the DUI penalties are too lenient and we cannot deterred future offenders.

 

[johnnycakes]

2. The general sense in the legal community is that first time offenses, at least here, are far too harsh. 3. Point 2 aside, the general sense in the legal community is that the punishments for multiple DUI convictions is not too harsh at all. 4. There are no good solutions to this problem.

Here's a thought; make the first offense less harsh then throw the book at them on the second.

That's pretty much the consensus amongst the DUI bar here. ETA: I guess I should have been more specific as the problem I was initially referencing was that the DUI penalties are too lenient and we cannot deterred future offenders.

The real problem, IMO, is the alcoholic drinkers and drivers. From what I have seen, they cannot be deterred; they must be prevented from driving while intoxicated. And that needs to be balanced against the needs of them & their family to make a living as well as the need to keep the rest of society safe.

 

[Slapdash]

1) the majority of people DON'T know the punishment for DUI they face when they decide to get behind the wheel;

I would say most people dont know the punishment statutes for a majority of infractions. They certainly KNOW its illegal though.

Of course they know it's illegal. But knowing just that is not enough. The idea of deterrence is premised on the assumption that the potential offender is a rational actor. Deterrence works then if the punishment for the crime (jail, fine, loss of license) multiplied by the risk of getting caught (cops on the road, checkpoints, distance from home, etc.) outweighs or is greater than the benefits (cost of a cab, not leaving a car, having car in AM, etc.). One cannot do this cost-benefit analysis based solely on "it's illegal." She'd need to know more - and I think the knowledge that jail is mandatory is the minimum needed here. But unfortunately that isn't often the case. Of course though this all assumes a rational actor willing to consider her options (if not morally persuaded by the thought that DUI is "bad"). Expecting a then impaired person to go through this analysis is almost faulty on its face.

I don't agree with this at all.

 

[SWC]

hey brohans i do not think that knowing what you will get hit with for drunk driving or knowing it is illegal is the thing most epople that get a ton of duis and owis and all that mother jazz know what it coming but the disease makes them do it anyhow i really do not think that any of the six or seven offenders out there are just social drinkers they have a problem and with those folks i just do not think anything you do short of just putting them in jail will deter them they either have to be completey unable to get to a car or go through a twelve stepper and get on the wagon or do that same thing in some other way i am not saying a twelver is the only way but the point is unless they cure the disease or remove the car you are never going to punish them in to stopping take that to the bank brohans

 

[Jules Winnfield]

hey brohans i do not think that knowing what you will get hit with for drunk driving or knowing it is illegal is the thing most epople that get a ton of duis and owis and all that mother jazz know what it coming but the disease makes them do it anyhow i really do not think that any of the six or seven offenders out there are just social drinkers they have a problem and with those folks i just do not think anything you do short of just putting them in jail will deter them they either have to be completey unable to get to a car or go through a twelve stepper and get on the wagon or do that same thing in some other way i am not saying a twelver is the only way but the point is unless they cure the disease or remove the car you are never going to punish them in to stopping take that to the bank brohans

WTF is this crap?

Are you drinking and driving right now?

 

[RCon]

http://gcn.com/articles/2010/09/29/sl-texting-bans-increase-crashes.aspx?m=1

I'm on a tablet and for some reason can't paste a link after the quoted text, only before it.

This seems like a really flawed study. No comparisons to the rate of change in other states as a control group?

I'd suggest the most likely reason for an increase is that phones with the ability to text have become significantly more common over the past several years. Seems like the study authors never even considered this possibility.

 

[johnnycakes]

hey brohans i do not think that knowing what you will get hit with for drunk driving or knowing it is illegal is the thing most epople that get a ton of duis and owis and all that mother jazz know what it coming but the disease makes them do it anyhow i really do not think that any of the six or seven offenders out there are just social drinkers they have a problem and with those folks i just do not think anything you do short of just putting them in jail will deter them they either have to be completey unable to get to a car or go through a twelve stepper and get on the wagon or do that same thing in some other way i am not saying a twelver is the only way but the point is unless they cure the disease or remove the car you are never going to punish them in to stopping take that to the bank brohans

WTF is this crap?Are you drinking and driving right now?

chill brohans punctuation and caps are for high school graduates educated to cypher

 

[Kool-Aid Larry]

hey brohans i do not think that knowing what you will get hit with for drunk driving or knowing it is illegal is the thing most epople that get a ton of duis and owis and all that mother jazz know what it coming but the disease makes them do it anyhow i really do not think that any of the six or seven offenders out there are just social drinkers they have a problem and with those folks i just do not think anything you do short of just putting them in jail will deter them they either have to be completey unable to get to a car or go through a twelve stepper and get on the wagon or do that same thing in some other way i am not saying a twelver is the only way but the point is unless they cure the disease or remove the car you are never going to punish them in to stopping take that to the bank brohans

I don't know anything about those ignition locks, but I'd think that would be the way to go with those brohans.

all this stuff about ruining peoples' lives and years of mandatory jail time is really just vindictive juvenile nonsense.

 

[LittleLarry]

Get a DUI with a BAC >.15 and you're looking at 30-60 days.

Wow, that's rough. It would seem if you're someone that would drink to this extent it would be dumb to submit a breath/blood sample.

As a DUI defense attorney, would your chances of winning improve with no sample and no field sobriety test? Or does that even matter?

 

[Kool-Aid Larry]

Get a DUI with a BAC >.15 and you're looking at 30-60 days.

Wow, that's rough. It would seem if you're someone that would drink to this extent it would be dumb to submit a breath/blood sample.

As a DUI defense attorney, would your chances of winning improve with no sample and no field sobriety test? Or does that even matter?

I think it's usually just a separate charge, isn't it?

they obviously can't nail you for .16, so it ends up being automatic license suspension, or whatever penalty for refusing the test.

I think that was basically just what happened in the op.

 

[LittleLarry]

Get a DUI with a BAC >.15 and you're looking at 30-60 days.

Wow, that's rough. It would seem if you're someone that would drink to this extent it would be dumb to submit a breath/blood sample.

As a DUI defense attorney, would your chances of winning improve with no sample and no field sobriety test? Or does that even matter?

I think it's usually just a separate charge, isn't it?

they obviously can't nail you for .16, so it ends up being automatic license suspension, or whatever penalty for refusing the test.

I think that was basically just what happened in the op.

Yep, definitely.

But I can't believe that charge is as harsh as 30 days in jail.

 

[FattyVM]

hey brohans i do not think that knowing what you will get hit with for drunk driving or knowing it is illegal is the thing most epople that get a ton of duis and owis and all that mother jazz know what it coming but the disease makes them do it anyhow i really do not think that any of the six or seven offenders out there are just social drinkers they have a problem and with those folks i just do not think anything you do short of just putting them in jail will deter them they either have to be completey unable to get to a car or go through a twelve stepper and get on the wagon or do that same thing in some other way i am not saying a twelver is the only way but the point is unless they cure the disease or remove the car you are never going to punish them in to stopping take that to the bank brohans

I don't know anything about those ignition locks, but I'd think that would be the way to go with those brohans.

all this stuff about ruining peoples' lives and years of mandatory jail time is really just vindictive juvenile nonsense.

The reason I was adamant about it is due to a GB of mine. He was hit a few years back, the penalties (including the interlock) are devastating. The interlock itself still hasn't been perfected and has false readings periodically (even with the paid for monthly maintenance) that leads to hoops to be jumped through. If he didn't have a forgiving labor job, he would have been left in the dirt with a pile of debt he never could have kept up to date on.

The answer to me as an engineer was the thought that they should iron out the interlock technical issues, make it completely mandatory for first offenders and lower the OTHER penalties. The SECOND DUI should be soul-crushing in regards to its cost/penalties.

 

[KCitons]

hey brohans i do not think that knowing what you will get hit with for drunk driving or knowing it is illegal is the thing most epople that get a ton of duis and owis and all that mother jazz know what it coming but the disease makes them do it anyhow i really do not think that any of the six or seven offenders out there are just social drinkers they have a problem and with those folks i just do not think anything you do short of just putting them in jail will deter them they either have to be completey unable to get to a car or go through a twelve stepper and get on the wagon or do that same thing in some other way i am not saying a twelver is the only way but the point is unless they cure the disease or remove the car you are never going to punish them in to stopping take that to the bank brohans

I don't know anything about those ignition locks, but I'd think that would be the way to go with those brohans.

all this stuff about ruining peoples' lives and years of mandatory jail time is really just vindictive juvenile nonsense.

The reason I was adamant about it is due to a GB of mine. He was hit a few years back, the penalties (including the interlock) are devastating. The interlock itself still hasn't been perfected and has false readings periodically (even with the paid for monthly maintenance) that leads to hoops to be jumped through. If he didn't have a forgiving labor job, he would have been left in the dirt with a pile of debt he never could have kept up to date on.

The answer to me as an engineer was the thought that they should iron out the interlock technical issues, make it completely mandatory for first offenders and lower the OTHER penalties. The SECOND DUI should be soul-crushing in regards to its cost/penalties.

When I first read this, I thought your friend was the victim of a drunk driver. Curious choice of words to describe the penalties.

My only concern is that lowering the 1st offense penalties to more of a slap on the wrist will lead to less people taking drunk driving serious. Some will continue to drink and drive until they get their first and then they will never risk drinking and driving again. If they can make the choice after the 1st offense, why can't they do it before?

 

[SWC]

it seems to this old boy that there is a line somewhere where for first and maybe second time guys you have social drinkers who just act dumb and need to be scared in to acting the right way by a fine and time or whatever but somewhere above that and i do not know if it is third or fourth or whatnot there are guys where no punishment will change their ways because it is a disease and not something subject to rational thinking and i think for those guys you one throw the book at them and two we need to make sure that there is a larger treatment component in the punishment i know that is coddling a perp and we like to punish not help but the crime at that point is a syumptum of a sickness and you will just keep having the same thing happen unless you get the guy on the right path brohans take that to the bank

 

[KCitons]

To be honest, I should have titled this thread something besides "Are the DUI laws a joke". It was born out of frustration after an evening where my FIL was falling down drunk in front of my kids. And then I hear that it appears his 4th DUI charge (that I know of and 3rd in 10 years), is being dropped to a misdemeanor.

I have a friend whose 23 year old son is in prison. He was driving after his 2nd offense and hit another car. The guy in the other car lost both his legs. My friend spent every dime he had to try to keep his kid out of prison. At least 3 lives were forever altered because of drunk driving.

I understand Kool Aid Larry's point of me learning my own lesson about not drinking and driving. And why should others not have the same opportunity to learn this on their own. I honestly don't think a majority of people would be able to do it. There needs to be an outside force to give them a "nudge" or a reason. Without it, they will continue to put themselves and others at risk.

I don't want to see someone's life ruined because of a 1st time DUI conviction when they had 2 beers with dinner, but also don't want to see them hurt/kill someone because they didn't realize they were impaired. If I have to choose, I choose the punishment over the accident.

 

[Zow]

Get a DUI with a BAC >.15 and you're looking at 30-60 days.

Wow, that's rough. It would seem if you're someone that would drink to this extent it would be dumb to submit a breath/blood sample.

As a DUI defense attorney, would your chances of winning improve with no sample and no field sobriety test? Or does that even matter?

In Arizona refusing to blow is not a separate charge, although it does result in an automatic 1 year loss of license. However, if a person refuses to blow officers merely then need to obtain a telephonic warrant from an on-call judge to take the person's blood (and by force, if necessary). 99% of the time the officer is experienced enough and the factors in play enough that the state can still easily get adequate evidence against the person to obtain a conviction.

Field sobriety tests to me are almost always a non-issue. In AZ there's no penalty for not doing them so I'd always advise someone to politely refuse because you're only giving them more potential evidence at that point. That's because it's impossible to pass because there's no such thing as a "pass/fail" with it. Nonetheless, I've done enough cross-examinations of them on officers to confidently believe I can make them seem a silly enough exercise. Of course, if an officer has my client on video and she is noticably a stumbling drunk that isn't good, but she'd appear that way anyway.

So, the strict answer to your question is of course it would improve my case. However, it's almost never the case that they don't have either a registered BAC through breath or blood and some other evidence of impairment (FSTs, poor driving, admissions, etc.).

 

[Zow]

Get a DUI with a BAC >.15 and you're looking at 30-60 days.

Wow, that's rough. It would seem if you're someone that would drink to this extent it would be dumb to submit a breath/blood sample.

As a DUI defense attorney, would your chances of winning improve with no sample and no field sobriety test? Or does that even matter?

I think it's usually just a separate charge, isn't it?

they obviously can't nail you for .16, so it ends up being automatic license suspension, or whatever penalty for refusing the test.

I think that was basically just what happened in the op.

All this is completely dependent upon which state the DUI occurs in. Different states have some pretty different rules and consequences for what happens upon refusal.

 

[Zow]

1) the majority of people DON'T know the punishment for DUI they face when they decide to get behind the wheel;

I would say most people dont know the punishment statutes for a majority of infractions. They certainly KNOW its illegal though.

Of course they know it's illegal. But knowing just that is not enough. The idea of deterrence is premised on the assumption that the potential offender is a rational actor. Deterrence works then if the punishment for the crime (jail, fine, loss of license) multiplied by the risk of getting caught (cops on the road, checkpoints, distance from home, etc.) outweighs or is greater than the benefits (cost of a cab, not leaving a car, having car in AM, etc.). One cannot do this cost-benefit analysis based solely on "it's illegal." She'd need to know more - and I think the knowledge that jail is mandatory is the minimum needed here. But unfortunately that isn't often the case. Of course though this all assumes a rational actor willing to consider her options (if not morally persuaded by the thought that DUI is "bad"). Expecting a then impaired person to go through this analysis is almost faulty on its face.

I don't agree with this at all.

care to explain?

 

[FattyVM]

I don't know anything about those ignition locks, but I'd think that would be the way to go with those brohans.

all this stuff about ruining peoples' lives and years of mandatory jail time is really just vindictive juvenile nonsense.

The reason I was adamant about it is due to a GB of mine. He was hit a few years back, the penalties (including the interlock) are devastating. The interlock itself still hasn't been perfected and has false readings periodically (even with the paid for monthly maintenance) that leads to hoops to be jumped through. If he didn't have a forgiving labor job, he would have been left in the dirt with a pile of debt he never could have kept up to date on.

The answer to me as an engineer was the thought that they should iron out the interlock technical issues, make it completely mandatory for first offenders and lower the OTHER penalties. The SECOND DUI should be soul-crushing in regards to its cost/penalties.

When I first read this, I thought your friend was the victim of a drunk driver. Curious choice of words to describe the penalties.

My only concern is that lowering the 1st offense penalties to more of a slap on the wrist will lead to less people taking drunk driving serious. Some will continue to drink and drive until they get their first and then they will never risk drinking and driving again. If they can make the choice after the 1st offense, why can't they do it before?

Good call on it being a poor choice of words by my me. I can also see things from your point of view, and it's a valid concern.

In re: to the bolded part of your post, I think it's the whole false assumption some people have that only real "drunks" get DUI's. They don't believe it can happen to them after only having 2 or 3 drinks over the course of a dinner, or someone who drinks infrequently and goes a bit too far. If the offender is reasonable and relatively responsible in other activities, I think that first punch would be devastating enough to change any preconceptions. Which is where I think the interlock could actually shine and help out those cases, while still allowing for the persistent offenders to be hopefully caught before they hurt anyone one else.

 

[LittleLarry]

Get a DUI with a BAC >.15 and you're looking at 30-60 days.

Wow, that's rough. It would seem if you're someone that would drink to this extent it would be dumb to submit a breath/blood sample.

As a DUI defense attorney, would your chances of winning improve with no sample and no field sobriety test? Or does that even matter?

Field sobriety tests to me are almost always a non-issue. In AZ there's no penalty for not doing them so I'd always advise someone to politely refuse because you're only giving them more potential evidence at that point.

Thank you.

We all here are responsible. But can you offer any more advice in the event we're pulled over after having a few beers?

 

[KCitons]

I don't know anything about those ignition locks, but I'd think that would be the way to go with those brohans.

all this stuff about ruining peoples' lives and years of mandatory jail time is really just vindictive juvenile nonsense.

The reason I was adamant about it is due to a GB of mine. He was hit a few years back, the penalties (including the interlock) are devastating. The interlock itself still hasn't been perfected and has false readings periodically (even with the paid for monthly maintenance) that leads to hoops to be jumped through. If he didn't have a forgiving labor job, he would have been left in the dirt with a pile of debt he never could have kept up to date on.

The answer to me as an engineer was the thought that they should iron out the interlock technical issues, make it completely mandatory for first offenders and lower the OTHER penalties. The SECOND DUI should be soul-crushing in regards to its cost/penalties.

When I first read this, I thought your friend was the victim of a drunk driver. Curious choice of words to describe the penalties.

My only concern is that lowering the 1st offense penalties to more of a slap on the wrist will lead to less people taking drunk driving serious. Some will continue to drink and drive until they get their first and then they will never risk drinking and driving again. If they can make the choice after the 1st offense, why can't they do it before?

Good call on it being a poor choice of words by my me. I can also see things from your point of view, and it's a valid concern.

In re: to the bolded part of your post, I think it's the whole false assumption some people have that only real "drunks" get DUI's. They don't believe it can happen to them after only having 2 or 3 drinks over the course of a dinner, or someone who drinks infrequently and goes a bit too far. If the offender is reasonable and relatively responsible in other activities, I think that first punch would be devastating enough to change any preconceptions. Which is where I think the interlock could actually shine and help out those cases, while still allowing for the persistent offenders to be hopefully caught before they hurt anyone one else.

My only concern is the problems you mentioned with interlock devices malfunctioning at the worst time. Like rushing someone to the hospital, fleeing from a hurricane or tornado, or being stranded in a snow storm.

I'm still on the fence about just how severe the penalty should be for 1st offenders. I really think it should be a zero tolerance. I keep hearing people mention how it wouldn't be fair for a person who just had a couple beers with dinner. But, my question would be, how do you know those two beers couldn't have caused you to miss a stop sign or run a red light?

Also, how do you determine between a two people that claim they only had two beers, yet one blows a .05 and the other a .09? Is one of them lying about only 2 beers? In the end you remove all variables and go with the baseline of .08. Doesn't matter how much you drink, how much you ate, or how big of a man you are. If you are over and drive, it's your own fault.

I've also seen some pocket breathalyzers. This is another tool that people could use to determine if they are ok to drive. But, very few people use them. Maybe they would be surprised how quickly those 2-3 beers effected their BAC.

 

[Zow]

Get a DUI with a BAC >.15 and you're looking at 30-60 days.

Wow, that's rough. It would seem if you're someone that would drink to this extent it would be dumb to submit a breath/blood sample.

As a DUI defense attorney, would your chances of winning improve with no sample and no field sobriety test? Or does that even matter?

Field sobriety tests to me are almost always a non-issue. In AZ there's no penalty for not doing them so I'd always advise someone to politely refuse because you're only giving them more potential evidence at that point.

Thank you.

We all here are responsible. But can you offer any more advice in the event we're pulled over after having a few beers?

Ethically I can't because that advice would likely change regarding on the particular state you are stopped in. So, what I may advise you would be smart to do in AZ may be horrible advice for another state. DUIs are unique in the sense that most states have found ways to circumvent general 5th Amendment principles (like right to remain silent, not incriminate, etc.).

 

[Zow]

I don't know anything about those ignition locks, but I'd think that would be the way to go with those brohans.

all this stuff about ruining peoples' lives and years of mandatory jail time is really just vindictive juvenile nonsense.

The reason I was adamant about it is due to a GB of mine. He was hit a few years back, the penalties (including the interlock) are devastating. The interlock itself still hasn't been perfected and has false readings periodically (even with the paid for monthly maintenance) that leads to hoops to be jumped through. If he didn't have a forgiving labor job, he would have been left in the dirt with a pile of debt he never could have kept up to date on.

The answer to me as an engineer was the thought that they should iron out the interlock technical issues, make it completely mandatory for first offenders and lower the OTHER penalties. The SECOND DUI should be soul-crushing in regards to its cost/penalties.

When I first read this, I thought your friend was the victim of a drunk driver. Curious choice of words to describe the penalties.

My only concern is that lowering the 1st offense penalties to more of a slap on the wrist will lead to less people taking drunk driving serious. Some will continue to drink and drive until they get their first and then they will never risk drinking and driving again. If they can make the choice after the 1st offense, why can't they do it before?

Good call on it being a poor choice of words by my me. I can also see things from your point of view, and it's a valid concern.

In re: to the bolded part of your post, I think it's the whole false assumption some people have that only real "drunks" get DUI's. They don't believe it can happen to them after only having 2 or 3 drinks over the course of a dinner, or someone who drinks infrequently and goes a bit too far. If the offender is reasonable and relatively responsible in other activities, I think that first punch would be devastating enough to change any preconceptions. Which is where I think the interlock could actually shine and help out those cases, while still allowing for the persistent offenders to be hopefully caught before they hurt anyone one else.

My only concern is the problems you mentioned with interlock devices malfunctioning at the worst time. Like rushing someone to the hospital, fleeing from a hurricane or tornado, or being stranded in a snow storm.

I'm still on the fence about just how severe the penalty should be for 1st offenders. I really think it should be a zero tolerance. I keep hearing people mention how it wouldn't be fair for a person who just had a couple beers with dinner. But, my question would be, how do you know those two beers couldn't have caused you to miss a stop sign or run a red light?

Also, how do you determine between a two people that claim they only had two beers, yet one blows a .05 and the other a .09? Is one of them lying about only 2 beers? In the end you remove all variables and go with the baseline of .08. Doesn't matter how much you drink, how much you ate, or how big of a man you are. If you are over and drive, it's your own fault.

I've also seen some pocket breathalyzers. This is another tool that people could use to determine if they are ok to drive. But, very few people use them. Maybe they would be surprised how quickly those 2-3 beers effected their BAC.

Pocket breathalyzers are horribly unreliable. But I do agree with your sentiment that people need to be educated with just how alcohol impairment works. As has been mentioned, alcohol affects different people differently. So I'd also agree with you that a baseline number is, while not ideal, probably the best way we can police DUIs. I think we can all agree policing DUIs is a good thing and there should be repercussions for driving impaired or >.08 for both specific and general deterrent purposes.

Nonetheless, I still do think the issue here is how to punish a person who is first convicted of a DUI. Again, it's here I'd argue that the majority of the public simply does not grasp the severity of their actions and the severity of their punishment. Accordingly, I'd rather see efforts put forward to educate, but naturally I'd note that can be pricey and it's simply easy to reactively punish rather than educate.

 

[dparker713]

I think we can all agree policing DUIs is a good thing and there should be repercussions for driving impaired or >.08 for both specific and general deterrent purposes.

I'm not entirely sure about that. I've no idea of the numbers pre and post implementation of more serious DUI enforcement regarding accidents causing serious bodily harm or death, but a DUI seems more of a precursor infraction. A potentially extremely broad swath thrown in order to prevent more serious crimes, like vehicular manslaughter.

 

[KCitons]

Ultimately it comes down to what we as society expect from each other and how we choose to punish those that don't follow the social norm.

If someone shoplifts an item, the penalty is pretty insignificant. No jail time, fines in the range of $250, and no change to the persons life. A second offense shoplifting charge is nearly the same. 99% of the time, it's an increased fine and possibly a year of probation. Third offense it becomes an automatic felony and jail time is mandatory. (25 years to life is possible, but most see 3-5 year sentences)

When you look at the crime of shoplifting, we have a long history of common sense telling us that stealing is wrong. Also with the 70% of the worlds population following religion, teachings such as the Ten Commandments spell it out clearly. Because of this, the social acceptance of punishing someone severely for shoplifting, barely raises an eyebrow.

By comparison, driving drunk is something that has only garnered societies attention recently. Until 70% of the population finds the act of driving drunk to be socially unacceptable and warranting severe penalties, we will continue to see 3rd offense shoplifters behind bars and 3rd offense drunk drivers behind the wheel.

After all, to make the victim of a shoplifting crime whole, you only need to make monetary compensation. There is no way to compensate the victim of a drunk driving death.

 

[Zow]

I think we can all agree policing DUIs is a good thing and there should be repercussions for driving impaired or >.08 for both specific and general deterrent purposes.

I'm not entirely sure about that. I've no idea of the numbers pre and post implementation of more serious DUI enforcement regarding accidents causing serious bodily harm or death, but a DUI seems more of a precursor infraction. A potentially extremely broad swath thrown in order to prevent more serious crimes, like vehicular manslaughter.

I see your point... but I think DUI is unique enough in that it is the driving force behind what I presume to be an incredibly high percentage of vehicular manslaughter. This is distinguishable from an assault/murder type scenario because there are many driving forces behind murders that cannot directly be connected to a person's penchant for committed misdemeanor assault. Accordingly, if we have empirical data to show that our DUI penalties deter the number of drunk drivers*, I think we can safely conclude they deter the more serious crimes associated with DUI.

*Admittedly this may be impossible to show because policing DUI is a relatively new thing and we likely don't have a way to quantify the percentage of drivers driving impaired prior to the current stringent enforcement.

 

[Zow]

By comparison, driving drunk is something that has only garnered societies attention recently. Until 70% of the population finds the act of driving drunk to be socially unacceptable and warranting severe penalties, we will continue to see 3rd offense shoplifters behind bars and 3rd offense drunk drivers behind the wheel.

I really can't sign onto this. I'm not so sure about other states, but the two states I've practiced in (Minnesota and Arizona) I can confidently say that 3rd time DUI offenders are treated substantially harsher than your third time shoplifters. You are correct in that lots of state laws permit 3rd time shoplifters to be charged as a felony and imprisoned, but that does not mean that prosecutors implement that. Using my current jurisdiction as an example, where I represent many people charged with a 3rd shoplift and DUI, I would "expect" a plea offer for a 3rd time shoplifter to include a misdemeanor, a minor fine, restitution and maybe a few days jail (if that). In contrast, I would expect an offer on a third time DUI to include a felony conviction and at least 4 months in jail along with 5 years of supervised probation with alcohol monitoring and no license. If the guy has a felony history unrelated to DUI, I'd expect an offer of 2.5 prison. If the person has some potential favorable issue in his case, he might be fortunate enough to get an offer to a misdemeanor with at least 4 months jail, gobs of fines, and license revocation.

I know this is only one jurisdiction amongst many in our country, but I still have serious doubts to your hyperbole.

 

[KCitons]

I guess the best relation I can make is the way society (and to a degree the government) treats cigarettes. From the minute this country was created, smoking tobacco has been an integral part of both our society and economy. It was perfectly acceptable to smoke in movie theaters, buses and even airplanes. What has changed over the past 25-30 years? People have become better educated into the effects of cigarette smoke on both themselves and others.

I often wonder why federal, state, and local governments choose to regulate and tax something they deem to be so dangerous? I compared it to the seat belt laws. If they truly want to protect us from ourselves, then why would the government allow us to smoke at all?

Also, people that had smoked for decades, made the decision to quit on their own. Why? Was it to prolong their own life, or protect the people around them from second hand smoke? (Maybe it was the cost, due to massive taxes) Either way, they made the choice. And could do the same with drinking and driving.

 

[Zow]

I guess the best relation I can make is the way society (and to a degree the government) treats cigarettes. From the minute this country was created, smoking tobacco has been an integral part of both our society and economy. It was perfectly acceptable to smoke in movie theaters, buses and even airplanes. What has changed over the past 25-30 years? People have become better educated into the effects of cigarette smoke on both themselves and others.

I often wonder why federal, state, and local governments choose to regulate and tax something they deem to be so dangerous? I compared it to the seat belt laws. If they truly want to protect us from ourselves, then why would the government allow us to smoke at all?

Also, people that had smoked for decades, made the decision to quit on their own. Why? Was it to prolong their own life, or protect the people around them from second hand smoke? (Maybe it was the cost, due to massive taxes) Either way, they made the choice. And could do the same with drinking and driving.

This argument/analogy seems to run entirely contrary to your initial premise.

 

[KCitons]

By comparison, driving drunk is something that has only garnered societies attention recently. Until 70% of the population finds the act of driving drunk to be socially unacceptable and warranting severe penalties, we will continue to see 3rd offense shoplifters behind bars and 3rd offense drunk drivers behind the wheel.

I really can't sign onto this. I'm not so sure about other states, but the two states I've practiced in (Minnesota and Arizona) I can confidently say that 3rd time DUI offenders are treated substantially harsher than your third time shoplifters. You are correct in that lots of state laws permit 3rd time shoplifters to be charged as a felony and imprisoned, but that does not mean that prosecutors implement that. Using my current jurisdiction as an example, where I represent many people charged with a 3rd shoplift and DUI, I would "expect" a plea offer for a 3rd time shoplifter to include a misdemeanor, a minor fine, restitution and maybe a few days jail (if that). In contrast, I would expect an offer on a third time DUI to include a felony conviction and at least 4 months in jail along with 5 years of supervised probation with alcohol monitoring and no license. If the guy has a felony history unrelated to DUI, I'd expect an offer of 2.5 prison. If the person has some potential favorable issue in his case, he might be fortunate enough to get an offer to a misdemeanor with at least 4 months jail, gobs of fines, and license revocation.

I know this is only one jurisdiction amongst many in our country, but I still have serious doubts to your hyperbole.

The reason I chose shoplifting, is because I spent nearly a decade working in retail loss prevention. I've seen the results first hand. If someone gave me a choice, I would rather take my chances with the 3rd offense DUI, than the 3rd offense shoplifting.

I do agree, it may not be the same in all states. Maybe I need to move.

 

[Zow]

By comparison, driving drunk is something that has only garnered societies attention recently. Until 70% of the population finds the act of driving drunk to be socially unacceptable and warranting severe penalties, we will continue to see 3rd offense shoplifters behind bars and 3rd offense drunk drivers behind the wheel.

I really can't sign onto this. I'm not so sure about other states, but the two states I've practiced in (Minnesota and Arizona) I can confidently say that 3rd time DUI offenders are treated substantially harsher than your third time shoplifters. You are correct in that lots of state laws permit 3rd time shoplifters to be charged as a felony and imprisoned, but that does not mean that prosecutors implement that. Using my current jurisdiction as an example, where I represent many people charged with a 3rd shoplift and DUI, I would "expect" a plea offer for a 3rd time shoplifter to include a misdemeanor, a minor fine, restitution and maybe a few days jail (if that). In contrast, I would expect an offer on a third time DUI to include a felony conviction and at least 4 months in jail along with 5 years of supervised probation with alcohol monitoring and no license. If the guy has a felony history unrelated to DUI, I'd expect an offer of 2.5 prison. If the person has some potential favorable issue in his case, he might be fortunate enough to get an offer to a misdemeanor with at least 4 months jail, gobs of fines, and license revocation.

I know this is only one jurisdiction amongst many in our country, but I still have serious doubts to your hyperbole.

The reason I chose shoplifting, is because I spent nearly a decade working in retail loss prevention. I've seen the results first hand. If someone gave me a choice, I would rather take my chances with the 3rd offense DUI, than the 3rd offense shoplifting.

I do agree, it may not be the same in all states. Maybe I need to move.

Mind if I ask what state?

 

[dparker713]

If they truly want to protect us from ourselves, then why would the government allow us to smoke at all?

We allow the government to act, not the other way around.

 

[KCitons]

By comparison, driving drunk is something that has only garnered societies attention recently. Until 70% of the population finds the act of driving drunk to be socially unacceptable and warranting severe penalties, we will continue to see 3rd offense shoplifters behind bars and 3rd offense drunk drivers behind the wheel.

I really can't sign onto this. I'm not so sure about other states, but the two states I've practiced in (Minnesota and Arizona) I can confidently say that 3rd time DUI offenders are treated substantially harsher than your third time shoplifters. You are correct in that lots of state laws permit 3rd time shoplifters to be charged as a felony and imprisoned, but that does not mean that prosecutors implement that. Using my current jurisdiction as an example, where I represent many people charged with a 3rd shoplift and DUI, I would "expect" a plea offer for a 3rd time shoplifter to include a misdemeanor, a minor fine, restitution and maybe a few days jail (if that). In contrast, I would expect an offer on a third time DUI to include a felony conviction and at least 4 months in jail along with 5 years of supervised probation with alcohol monitoring and no license. If the guy has a felony history unrelated to DUI, I'd expect an offer of 2.5 prison. If the person has some potential favorable issue in his case, he might be fortunate enough to get an offer to a misdemeanor with at least 4 months jail, gobs of fines, and license revocation.

I know this is only one jurisdiction amongst many in our country, but I still have serious doubts to your hyperbole.

The reason I chose shoplifting, is because I spent nearly a decade working in retail loss prevention. I've seen the results first hand. If someone gave me a choice, I would rather take my chances with the 3rd offense DUI, than the 3rd offense shoplifting.

I do agree, it may not be the same in all states. Maybe I need to move.

Mind if I ask what state?

Nebraska

If they truly want to protect us from ourselves, then why would the government allow us to smoke at all?

We allow the government to act, not the other way around.

No sure what you mean by this. There are a lot of things going on in the government that are questionable. Which is worse for a person, driving their entire life from age 16 without a seat belt. Or smoking their entire life from the age of 18?

 

[KCitons]

Just wanted to give an update to this story. I can confirm that DUI laws are in fact, a joke. (at least in my state)

FIL went to court this morning. Received 5 months in the county jail, $1000 fine and license suspension for 15 years. The judge told him he evidently has a drinking problem, but failed to court order any alcohol assistance program. Judge also made reference to this technically being his 4th offense in the state of Nebraska. (3 within the 15 year window)

If a person is willing to drive while double the legal limit, then he will have no problem driving with a suspended license.

When do we start filing lawsuits against judges when a multiple dui convicted driver kills someone? Someone needs to take responsibility.

 

[Kool-Aid Larry]

Just wanted to give an update to this story. I can confirm that DUI laws are in fact, a joke. (at least in my state)

FIL went to court this morning. Received 5 months in the county jail, $1000 fine and license suspension for 15 years. The judge told him he evidently has a drinking problem, but failed to court order any alcohol assistance program. Judge also made reference to this technically being his 4th offense in the state of Nebraska. (3 within the 15 year window)

If a person is willing to drive while double the legal limit, then he will have no problem driving with a suspended license.

When do we start filing lawsuits against judges when a multiple dui convicted driver kills someone? Someone needs to take responsibility.

In my younger days, I drove drunk. I know most people have at one time or another. I also know this is less about the driving and more about what is causing him to drink. Maybe it's the fact that my three kids are starting to drive now, that I don't want people like this to get a 2nd or 3rd chance to kill someone.

turn yourself in to the police and request death penalty or gtfo

Point was, I made a mistake and I learned from it. I now don't drink if I am going to drive. It just isn't worth it. On the other hand, people like my father in law hasn't matured enough in 70 years to understand what he is doing is a danger to society. He has also had a wake up call 3 times and still didn't learn from it. At what point does society start to make the decisions for him?

A lot of people his age also smoked when they were younger, they since have learned the dangers and quit.

what should the penalty be for a first offense?

If you read the original post, and the post of mine you highlighted, you will see that I am mostly concerned about the 2nd and 3rd offense drivers. But here are my thoughts

When a driver gets caught on his first offense, one of two things are happening. Either they got busted for having a couple of beers with dinner and didn't realize they were over the legal limit, or they have an alcohol abuse problem and need serious help.

If you are the former, it should be a wake up call, to never drink if you have to drive home. I would say a minimum of 5 year loss of license. If you choose not to police yourself and get caught again, then you don't need to drive ever again.

If you are the latter, and you have an BA level that is double the limit, you obviously have a problem. This isn't a case of two beers with dinner, you probably have an alcohol abuse problem and need to lose your license forever on your first offense. You should be forced to attend meetings and be required to weekly or bi weekly checks for alcohol in order to keep yourself out of jail. I would suggest 8AM Saturday and Sunday mornings.

looooool...dude, just admit this is a troll thread and move on.

 

[KCitons]

Just wanted to give an update to this story. I can confirm that DUI laws are in fact, a joke. (at least in my state)

FIL went to court this morning. Received 5 months in the county jail, $1000 fine and license suspension for 15 years. The judge told him he evidently has a drinking problem, but failed to court order any alcohol assistance program. Judge also made reference to this technically being his 4th offense in the state of Nebraska. (3 within the 15 year window)

If a person is willing to drive while double the legal limit, then he will have no problem driving with a suspended license.

When do we start filing lawsuits against judges when a multiple dui convicted driver kills someone? Someone needs to take responsibility.

In my younger days, I drove drunk. I know most people have at one time or another. I also know this is less about the driving and more about what is causing him to drink. Maybe it's the fact that my three kids are starting to drive now, that I don't want people like this to get a 2nd or 3rd chance to kill someone.

turn yourself in to the police and request death penalty or gtfo

Point was, I made a mistake and I learned from it. I now don't drink if I am going to drive. It just isn't worth it. On the other hand, people like my father in law hasn't matured enough in 70 years to understand what he is doing is a danger to society. He has also had a wake up call 3 times and still didn't learn from it. At what point does society start to make the decisions for him?

A lot of people his age also smoked when they were younger, they since have learned the dangers and quit.

what should the penalty be for a first offense?

If you read the original post, and the post of mine you highlighted, you will see that I am mostly concerned about the 2nd and 3rd offense drivers. But here are my thoughts

When a driver gets caught on his first offense, one of two things are happening. Either they got busted for having a couple of beers with dinner and didn't realize they were over the legal limit, or they have an alcohol abuse problem and need serious help.

If you are the former, it should be a wake up call, to never drink if you have to drive home. I would say a minimum of 5 year loss of license. If you choose not to police yourself and get caught again, then you don't need to drive ever again.

If you are the latter, and you have an BA level that is double the limit, you obviously have a problem. This isn't a case of two beers with dinner, you probably have an alcohol abuse problem and need to lose your license forever on your first offense. You should be forced to attend meetings and be required to weekly or bi weekly checks for alcohol in order to keep yourself out of jail. I would suggest 8AM Saturday and Sunday mornings.

looooool...dude, just admit this is a troll thread and move on.

Are you implying that I'm lying? What would I be trolling for?

My FIL has a problem and can't seem to fix it himself. His driving drunk has put the problem in front of people that can get him that help. But, they choose to look the other way.

 

[Zow]

Just wanted to give an update to this story. I can confirm that DUI laws are in fact, a joke. (at least in my state)

FIL went to court this morning. Received 5 months in the county jail, $1000 fine and license suspension for 15 years. The judge told him he evidently has a drinking problem, but failed to court order any alcohol assistance program. Judge also made reference to this technically being his 4th offense in the state of Nebraska. (3 within the 15 year window)

If a person is willing to drive while double the legal limit, then he will have no problem driving with a suspended license.

When do we start filing lawsuits against judges when a multiple dui convicted driver kills someone? Someone needs to take responsibility.

This actually seems lenient to you?